The police
were called to remove D, a drunk from a hospital corridor. He was placed in the
police car on the hospital forecourt, then charge and convicted with being found
drunk Ďon a highway or a public placeí.

The court held that it was enough to show
that D had been present on the highway and was perceived to be drunk. It didnít
matter that his presence on the highway was momentary and not of his own
volition.

The editor
and publisher of gay news were charged with blasphemous libel. They had
published a poem about Christ, which was considered to be an insult to
Christianity. The court held that there was no need to prove that the Dís
intended to blaspheme. As long as they had the intention to publish, they would
be liable.

X, a French
national, landed in England with a French passport endorsed in such a way, which
prevented her from working in the UK. She had to leave England so went to EIRE,
from there she was deported back to England by the Irish Police.

She
was found guilty of being in the UK, contrary to the Aliens Act 1920.

The Dís, a
large scale manufacturer of tinned peas, producing over 3 million tins in a
seven week season, was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act (1955) (now Food
and Safety Act 1990). When one tin was found to contain a small caterpillar.

The H of L dismissed the companyís appeal.
It was an offence of strict liability and was an example of one of the
regulatory offences. Therefore it was not sufficient to show that the company
had taken all reasonable care to avoid such an event happening.

The D was
charged with being in possession of drugs. The drugs were in one of two parcels
that the D said he believed contained perfume.

The H of L held that the offence
was one of strict liability, thus mens rea was unnecessary. The fact that D was in
possession of the contents of the parcel was sufficient.

Said obiter (per Lord Reid, Lord Pearce and Lord Willberforce) the strong
inference that possession of a package by an accused was possession of its
contents could be rebutted by raising real doubt either

(a) whether the accused (if a servant or bailee) had both no right to open the
package and no reason to suspect that the contents of the package were illicit,
or
(b) that (if the accused were the owner of the package) he had no knowledge of,
or was genuinely mistaken as to, the actual contents or their illicit nature and
received them innocently, and also that he had no reasonable opportunity since
receiving the package to acquaint himself with its contents.

D was a
landlady who did not live on the premises and only visited occasionally. Her
lodgers smoked cannabis and she was charged with being concerned in the
management of the premises which were used for the purpose of smoking cannabis.
It was not proved that she knew of the smoking.

The H of L quashed the
conviction and said it was not an offence of strict liability because knowledge
of the use of the premises was essential to the offence and since she had no
such knowledge, she did not commit the offence.

D was
charged with knowingly possessing explosives. He thought thought the substance
was soap powder. The court held that the prosecution must prove that the accused
knew that the substance was an explosive.

The Dís
were involved in building works in Hong Kong, when part of a building they were
constructing fell down. It was found that the collapse had occurred because the
builders had failed to follow the original plans exactly. Hong Kong building
regulations prohibited diverting in any substantial way from the plans.

On
appeal against conviction, the Dís argued that they were not liable because
they had not know that the changes they had made were substantial ones. However,
the court held that the relevant regulations created the offences of strict
liability and the convictions were upheld. It was confirmed that although there
is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be found
guilty of a criminal offence, this presumption could be displaced by strict
liability offences.

The Dís
were a company accused of causing polluted matter to enter a river. They were
using equipment to prevent any overflow into the river, but when the mechanism
became clogged with leaves the pollution was able to escape. There was no
evidence that the Dís had been negligent, or even knew that the pollution was
leaking out.

However the H of L held that in the normal meaning of the word, the
company had Ďcausedí the pollution to enter the water and their conviction
was upheld.

The D was
convicted of possession of cannabis when the knife he was carrying was found to
have 0.03g of cannabis resin adhered to it. In his defence he tried to say that
he did not know what the substance was.

On appeal, the court said that the
accused was guilty of possessing cannabis if he knew there was a substance on
the penknife, even if he didnít know what.

The
Divisional Court had upheld a conviction of a 15-year old boy for an offence of
inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency, determining that
it was a strict liability offence.

The H
of L overruled this decision, emphasising that where the statute makes no
mention of mens rea there is a presumption that it is required and this
presumption is particularly strong if the offence is serious.